Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rubens, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Parker, K. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rubens, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Parker, K. J.

Radiology, Vol 195, 379-383, Copyright © 1995 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Sonoelasticity imaging of prostate cancer: in vitro results

DJ Rubens, MA Hadley, SK Alam, L Gao, RD Mayer and KJ Parker
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, NY 14642-8648, USA.

PURPOSE: To compare sonoelasticity imaging versus ultrasound (US) in detection of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sonoelasticity imaging and US were performed on 10 prostatectomy specimens in which cancer was detected at previous biopsy. Six patients had no palpable lesions at digital rectal examination. Specimens were imaged axially at the apex, middle, and base of the gland to correlate with location of pathologic sections. All images were interpreted blindly and prospectively, and results were compared with pathologic findings. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity with sonoelasticity imaging were 85% and 84%, respectively, and 30% and 100% with standard US when compared with pathologic findings. Sixty-four percent of pathologically confirmed tumors detected at sonoelasticity imaging were isoechoic on conventional US images. CONCLUSION: In this limited study, sonoelasticity imaging was more sensitive for tumor detection and more accurate for assessment of tumor location than was conventional US.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
L. S. Taylor, D. J. Rubens, B. C. Porter, Z. Wu, R. B. Baggs, P. A. di Sant'Agnese, G. Nadasdy, D. Pasternack, E. M. Messing, P. Nigwekar, et al.
Prostate Cancer: Three-dimensional Sonoelastography for in Vitro Detection
Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 981 - 985.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1995 by the Radiological Society of North America.